Family Motto: Spero meliora. (Loosely translated as, "I hope for better things")
And if you don't like bad language, then bugger off.
Beware. Cookies maybe lurking on this site.
I usually post several times a day about differing subjects. Do scroll down

Google analytics

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Tobacco control will kill you.

Due to the ongoing war against anything that looks like a tobacco product, then extra deaths will happen. This will be the result of the now started war on E cigs.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend andProf Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence thatITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quitelong and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Dollsaid that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking mightcause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicionarose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attemptedto cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke causedlung cancer.

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and theuse of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood ofcausation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lungcancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for anindividual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at anypoint at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligencecase fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if aconsumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumerknew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. Theindividual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normallyintelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct hislife, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to[7.181]).